9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue, in the petitioner's reply, the petitioner refers to the issuance of invoices after the end of the financial year. On this issue, the third respondent records that the petitioner had stated that ITC matching was not a mandatory requirement for the period July 2017 to March 2019. This was not the contention of the petitioner in the reply. Thus, on both these issues, the petitioner's contentions were not dealt with in the impugned order. For such reason, a remand is necessary. The impugned order dated 24.04.2024 is partly set aside only insofar as the ITC mismatch issue and the rate of tax difference / classification issue are concerned. Consequently, the third respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articular, chapter heading 8701. He points out that the heading covers all tractors except road tractors along with semitrailers and engine capacity of more than 1800 CC. By referring to the petitioner's replies, learned counsel points out that the petitioner stated that these tractors are intended for agricultural purposes. He also pointed out that the petitioner had referred to the definitions set out in the Tamil Nadu Government Transportation Code in respect of farm tractor and road tractor. As regards the ITC mismatch issue, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner pointed out that invoices were issued subsequently by the suppliers' concerned and that the petitioner was entitled to avail of ITC on such basis. By referring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at 28%. The taxpayer had not specifically replied for that point. In the copy of invoice enclosed for perusal, the cubic capacity of the Tractor not mentioned. In view of the facts and based on the copies of invoice produced their explanations are not acceptable and the proposal is confirmed. 5. The above extract discloses that the third respondent did not discuss the petitioner's explanation for classifying it as a farm tractor or record reasons for rejecting such explanation. As regards the ITC mismatch issue, in the petitioner's reply, the petitioner refers to the issuance of invoices after the end of the financial year. On this issue, the third respondent records that the petitioner had stated that ITC matching was not a manda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
